On Sunday, September 16, one of my good friends, David Cantor, called me from The Toledo Blade where he worked as a photo editor.

“Have you seen the story on the Poynter Institute site?” Dave asked. “They really attack your photograph. Did Ken Irby talk to you?”

I was stunned. As soon as I got off the phone, I immediately went to the web and read the story.

“Seeing may not be believing anymore.”

The Poynter Institute, a watchdog of the media, was calling into question the validity of the photograph, and in turn, my integrity.

“In this age of digital manipulation, we may not know if an image is real or created.”

With two sentences, the validity of the photograph and a 20-year career were put into question. It also opened an interesting quandary for me.

How do you prove a digital image is real?

Poynter.org story on Sept. 16, 2001

Ken Irby, the writer of the story, had worked as a photojournalist for Newsday, the largest daily newspaper on Long Island in New York in the early 90’s. David Cantor and I were photographers for The Associated Press in New York City. Our paths had crossed many times. He had never spoken to me before writing the story. There were quotes from Vin Alabiso, Executive Photo Editor at The Associated Press, stating AP’s policy on digital manipulation, but no mention of me by name. Alabiso had not defended me, he only protected the AP.

“AP has a very strict written policy which prohibits the alteration of the content of a photo in any way,” he said. “The smoke in this photo combined with light and shadow has created an image which readers have seen in different ways.”

Never once did he say that I was a former staff photographer for The Associated Press. Never once did he say he knew the photographer and stood by his work. Even worse, he did not tell me that this was coming. He had been my boss, hiring me as a staff photographer in the New York City bureau in 1991.

The AP’s policy is tenuous at best. When does digital retouching become digital manipulation?

Photoshop offers photographers many options that took hours of work in the pre-computer days of photography. When we first started using digital imaging, standard retouching involved removing dust from the image, dodging and burning areas of the image, and in some cases – sharpening the image or smoothing a person’s face. All of these things could be done on a regular print with a brush and ink, or with airbrushing, the spraying of colored ink onto a print.

Is sharpening an image retouching or manipulation? According to the policies of most news organizations, sharpening is not allowed. In the beginning it was, even at the AP.

I didn’t make any manipulations when I sent my photo to the Associated Press. The only reason the photo was brought into Photoshop was for resizing and captioning. I did not even crop it. It was sent to AP as a full-frame image.

AP’s official policy on digital manipulation was written in 1990 during the infancy of the technology boom.

“Simply put, the Associated Press does not alter photographs. Our pictures must always tell the truth. The content of a photograph will NEVER be changed or manipulated in any way. Only the established norms of standard photo printing methods such as burning, dodging, toning and cropping are acceptable. Retouching is limited to removal of normal scratches and dust spots.”

The photo was shot at 9:04 am. It was transmitted to the Associated Press at 9:32am. In between these two times, I shot 20 digital images, 36 frames of color negative film, and 36 frames of color slide film. I edited through all 20 digital images and transmitted the first image shot. When was there time to manipulate the image? Sure it could have been done by a professional retoucher with a day to do it. Most manipulated images are easy to spot. So many things have to be exact.

I immediately sent an email to Ken Irby and to Media News, the industry’s main sounding board, stating my reputation and personal policy on digital manipulation. I would never change the content of an image before sending it to the media. After 20 years working as a photojournalist, the thought had never crossed my mind. I felt I had to go on the offensive to stop the damage to my reputation.

During my career, I had worked at three newspapers, and two wire services, The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse. I had friends around the country working in positions of power at newspapers and agencies. I began contacting them and asking them to write to Irby.

Dear Mr. Irby,

It saddens me deeply that you have impeached the reputation of Mark Phillips in your article regarding the image he photographed of the World Trade Center tragedy. Some have interpreted the image in the smoke billowing from the World Trade Center as the devil or Osama bin Laden. Wouldn’t Freud have a field day with that one?

I have known and worked with Mark for a number of years and his integrity is unassailable. As a former photographer for daily newspapers and current freelance photographer, Mark is a journalist first and would never bring supermarket tabloid sensationalism to his work.

Did you ever try to contact Mark to ask him about the photograph? It is unfortunate that an esteemed organization such as The Poynter Institute has failed to practice what it preaches when it comes to journalism — balanced reporting.

Sincerely,

Angela Harrington, president

Harrington Communications

And the Internet stayed active with both comments on my photograph and then, pictures that people claimed to have discovered since the attack.

A photograph of a tourist standing on the outdoor viewing platform of the World Trade Center with a plane about to hit the building began making its way around the Internet. Somehow my photograph fell into the same category with it. The tourist picture was quickly ruled a hoax, but in an unfortunate twist, respected publications like the New York Times, Time Magazine and New York Magazine ran stories about the hoaxes on the Internet, which included both that image and my image. Even 20/20 followed suit on their newsmagazine show.

How do you prove conclusively that a digital photograph is real? In the days of film, we always had incontrovertible evidence of the original scene. Negatives in strips showed a progression of images that were linked together by sprocket holes and tangible evidence. Digital files have no connection to the real world. Removable storage cards taken from digital cameras are reused constantly. The original file can be copied and stored numerous times. It is not a negative in any form.

The raw file from the camera is as close to a negative as digital can come. This file was copied immediately to my laptop and erased from the compact flash card used within the camera. This file was stored on a CD and eventually a DVD. Already we are into multiple copies of the same original file. So are they all original until they are manipulated? These copies of the file were never brought into Photoshop or any other program. They are still the raw files.

Olympus America, the manufacturer of the digital E-10 Camera that I used, is located on Long Island, New York. John Knaur, manager of Digital Services, was someone I had met at trade shows in Manhattan, and immediately accepted my request for authenticity. John informed me that there was hidden information within the file that would tell them if the original digital file had been manipulated with an advanced imaging program such as Photoshop.

I immediately sent two copies of the original raw file to their offices, one by email and one on a CD.

Their reply was swift and incontrovertible. The photograph was the original image produced by my Olympus E-10 digital camera. The memo was immediately posted on my website, stating the image had not been manipulated. New York Magazine was the only publication that never apologized and never printed a correction. I never heard anything from Vin Alabiso at the Associated Press, which bothered me for a long time.

None of this would have happened if I had not worked at the Associated Press and Agence France Press, both in New York City

CNN presented a video with a ghostly image that seemed to corroborate my image. Shot from the harbor on a 90° angle from my image, a devilish character seems to expand outward from the building.

Word was spreading even further about my photo, with media outlets all around the country contacting me. KUSA-TV in Denver asked me to participate in a live chat session on their website. Even Ken Irby from the Poynter Institute contacted me to do a followup so I could present my side of the story.

Inside Edition featured my photograph in a short piece talking about the disaster and the strange events that occurred. Their switchboards lit up. They, along with other media outlets, came to my home in Brooklyn to interview me on our roof with the same angle of Manhattan contained in the photograph. The interest grew.

The email messages continued to come at an even faster pace. The writers were sending me their religious histories and equating the photo to the sign that the end of the world was upon us. Others were saying I had been put on the earth to take this photo and that the photo showed who was really behind the attack.

My website was receiving millions of hits. I was learning just how easy I was to find on the Internet. My photo had become an Internet legend, reposted on hundreds of webpages worldwide. It became a topic on dozens of message boards. Photographs on the internet had no protection. We have all right-clicked images and sent them to friend, used them in school papers, and even printed in brochures and posters. Most people do not have a high value point for photographs.

Radio stations wanted to speak with me about the photograph. The morning DJ’s would mention “this photo they saw on the Internet with a face in it” and their listeners reacted swiftly, calling in to give their own analysis of the image and its meaning. Producers from the shows began calling my office, scheduling talks during their morning drive times. I accepted them all, deciding to take my side of the story out to the public directly.

In interview after interview, radio talk show hosts tried to have me state what I thought the religious meaning was in the picture. The photograph triggered an emotional reaction within the public. They were all looking for a reason why the attack had taken place. Many felt my picture answered their question. I tried to steer away from these philosophical discussions.

During each interview, my goal was to let the public know the devastation the attack had on the city and individuals witnessing it. The photograph was what each person would make of it. I would not put it into religious terms.

It was simply the worst event I had ever photographed. For many of the talk shows, it was an opportunity to hear a first person view of what happened, with my photograph becoming secondary. Many of the hosts were compassionate.

After each radio appearance, hundreds of emails flooded my in box.

Dear Mr. Phillips,

I heard your interview on our local radio station in Greenville, SC this morning and I can only imagine the feelings that you had seeing this terrible event take place before your eyes…I know how devastated I was merely seeing it on the television screen. I wanted to write you and offer support for your photo. I, like many people, can see an image but beyond that I see someone who even in a horrifying time, could keep his composure, do his job and post it for America to see. I am not a religious person. I am an average, everyday American who has taken our nation, it’s freedom and our safety for granted..that is until Sept. 11, 2001. Now I am a scared, angry American who believes that this tragedy will bring us closer as a nation and as a people and as one of those people I wanted to thank a fellow human being for a job well done and to say that I believe the photo was taken just as you said, without any changes being made to it and for those people out there with nothing better to do than to accuse you,or send messages of disbelief I ask, do we not have more pressing issues at this time to deal with than our denial that this did happen…it happened to us and this man was only doing his job.  

Thank you,

Lisa Gilmore

I found myself using the radio shows to release some of my own sorrow and terror. Having a young daughter, and realizing what the event meant for her lifetime, was a sobering thought. Nothing would ever be the same. September 10th seemed like a lifetime ago.

Other photographs had taken over as the picture of the day. The falling man photograph by Richard Drew, Stan Honda’s photograph of survivor Marcy Borders which became known as Dust Lady, and Tom Franklin’s iconic Raising the Flag by NYFD atop the rubble. I didn’t go to Ground Zero. Not once. That’s when I knew that I was done in the newspaper industry. I was willing to talk about my experience on the day but I did not want to go to see what lower Manhattan had become. It was over a month till I crossed the Brooklyn Bridge.

Every time I looked toward Manhattan, there was a gaping hole in the skyline. I would not return to the site of the towers until the day the 9/11 museum had its opening. That is the last time I have been there. It still doesn’t seem real.

The photograph of the Twin Towers pulled me into a different realm . Not only was I dealing with reaction to the photograph, but also to the effect the attack had on my community, my family, and the thousands of individuals who took the time to send me email. As often as possible, I responded to messages. Before long the sheer volume overwhelmed me.